Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond annotations by explaining that the output is ready-to-call tools with full schemas, and that it returns the top-N most relevant results. This provides useful behavioral context about the return format and direct callability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that is informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It avoids unnecessary repetition and is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (top-N tools with schemas), and examples. It could elaborate on how the query is interpreted or ranking logic, but it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand its role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters, including aliases. The description does not add significant new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists many example domains and differentiates itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a first-step discovery tool ('Call this FIRST'). The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' It gives examples of use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though the context implies it is a meta-tool for discovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.